PDA

View Full Version : World News North Korea - Nuclear Test...



annaomerta
09-10--2006, 10:30 AM
North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday, flying in the face of a warning from the U.N. Security Council and opening its crippled economy to the risk of fresh sanctions.South Korea's military ordered the army to step up a state of alert after Pyongyang announced its first-ever nuclear test, which brought unusual criticism from fellow communist China.
Pyongyang's move, which came about 30 minutes before Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe landed in Seoul for a visit, could heighten regional tension and could deal a fresh foreign policy blow to U.S. President George W. Bush ahead of mid-term polls.

The White House branded the act "provocative" and said it expected the U.N. Security Council to take immediate actions.
North Korea's announcement pushed the dollar to an eight-month high against the yen and helped shove oil above $60 a barrel. In Seoul, the won fell 1.5 percent to two-month lows and the main stock index tumbled as much as 3.6 percent.
The U.S. Geological Survey said it had detected a 4.2 magnitude tremor in North Korea at 10:35 local time (2:35 a.m. British time).
In a report from Moscow, Japanese broadcaster NHK quoted a Russian Defence Ministry official as saying it was "100 percent sure" that North Korea carried out a test at around that time.


FULL ARTICLE
(http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-09T082759Z_01_L08141538_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KOREA-NORTH.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2)


Opinions? What should be done?

Atomik
09-10--2006, 10:31 AM
Nuke 'em now befoe it's too late. :D

Ahem.

Failing that, I really don't see there's much we can do. As other countries catch up with the technology, it's inevitable that nuclear weapons are gonna become more commonplace.

Exedous
09-10--2006, 01:03 PM
It was akin to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Im scared for the future.

dooky
09-10--2006, 02:05 PM
Dam!.. I was hoping to take a holiday in that country before 'Mcdonalds' get there.
Im gonna pen a fan letter to the 'Dear Leader' and see if I can Blagg a freebie

James
09-10--2006, 02:53 PM
Opinions? What should be done?


I hope is a case of Kim wanting to strenghen his world position and resume talks but I do fear an Asain type Cuba missle crisis. What worries me most is what Atomik said 'tongue in cheek' nuke before it is too late...if the US thinks along the lines of WMD like it 'claimed' with Iraq and wants to go in before he has a nuke offensive fully set up.:(

John
09-10--2006, 02:57 PM
It was akin to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Im scared for the future.
I know this may sound terrible but thats actually good news (as far as anything like this can be contrived as good news) because that was a very basic bomb and the nuclear weapons available today can be much more powerful.

matthew
09-10--2006, 02:58 PM
It was akin to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Im scared for the future.

The size of the bomb is uncertain. South Korean reports put it as low as 550 tons of destructive power but Russia said it was between five and 15 kilotons. The 1945 Hiroshima bomb was 12.5-15 kilotons. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6033457.stm)


Opinions? What should be done?

Tell China to do more work..


Failing that, I really don't see there's much we can do. As other countries catch up with the technology, it's inevitable that nuclear weapons are gonna become more commonplace.

That's is a little Blasé if you don't mind me saying. They should not be more common. It just makes them far less controlled by international regulations. I agree there is not much we can do about it though.

showmet
09-10--2006, 03:59 PM
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Kim%20Jong%20Il%20Team%20America%20publi city%20shot.jpg
It is inevitable

Atomik
09-10--2006, 04:08 PM
That's is a little Blasé if you don't mind me saying. They should not be more common. It just makes them far less controlled by international regulations. I agree there is not much we can do about it though.I do mind you saying, actually. Blasé would imply I don't care. I do care, but I don't believe that in the long run we're gonna be able to do anything about nuclear proliferation.

Coyote
09-10--2006, 04:17 PM
Oh goody another chimp with a machinegun :rolleyes:

matthew
09-10--2006, 04:22 PM
I do mind you saying, actually. Blasé would imply I don't care. I do care, but I don't believe that in the long run we're gonna be able to do anything about nuclear proliferation.

I did not mean to imply you did not care. Sorry.
Just thinking that there is a enevitability and nothing we or others can do seems a bit defeatest. I'd not want to be in a world that is just going to be inundated with nukes, not under any mandatory inspections.

You just seem to have said ''Meh what ever wil be will be'' ;)

I think we should do as much as we can to get these weapons out of failed states and crack pots hands. George Bush Tony Blair are not included :harhar:

Atomik
09-10--2006, 04:25 PM
I did not mean to imply you did not care. Sorry.
Just thinking that there is a enevitability and nothing we or others can do seems a bit defeatest.S'not defeatist mate. I just can't see what we can do about it.


You just seem to have said ''Meh what ever wil be will be'' ;) Nope. I just can't see anything we can do about it.

matthew
09-10--2006, 04:40 PM
I just can't see what we can do about it.

I don't like to admit it.. but your going to be proved right. I fear.:(

Atomik
09-10--2006, 04:42 PM
I don't like to admit it.. but your going to be proved right. I fear.:(I fear so too. I'd dearly love to be proved wrong, but I suspect I won't be.

Stealste
09-10--2006, 06:57 PM
I get the impression that this situation was caused by us Westerners. When we all help the yankees fight wars, then they say "North Korea, Iran, YOU'RE NEXT!!" can you really blame them for trying to develop nuclear weapons? The only reason we invaded Iraq is because they DIDN'T have the weapons to stop us. I'd prefer if nobody has the weapons at all, the worst thing we ever created. But this nuke elitism (and lets face it, George W. is hardly a 'safe' person to have a large collection of these weapons?) is rediculous. As usual, we westerners are saying "We're worthy, civilised people, you foreign non-white people are barbarians and will sell them to terrorists". They just want to be safe from the U.S: Corrupt World Police.

dooky
09-10--2006, 08:32 PM
Seems a complex situation.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/kaplan-korea

Paul
09-10--2006, 11:54 PM
It's ironic that the biggest nuclear power, and the only country to have ever used them in a war is the one who makes the most fuss.

Seriously, that's about as sensible as listening to someone smoking 20 a day encouraging everyone else to quit.

Nothing can be done, what's the point of threatening sanctions and making the world even more unstable?

John
09-10--2006, 11:55 PM
I'm beginning to get the overwhelming feeling that something terrible is going to happen.


(I feel a great disturbance in the force...)

magicmonkey
10-10--2006, 06:38 AM
threatening sanctions and making the world even more unstable?

to my mind you've just stated the USA's mission statement! They're power hungry bastards and the divide and conquer thing is working for them at the moment so they're carrying on with it. It's a good thing that they don't think long term or they'd be sending in 'breeding troops' instead of soldiers!

Vaga
10-10--2006, 10:13 AM
Ain't nothing going to happen
about it, trust me.
storm in a teacup.
The world will sleep safe tonight
Batman's back in Gotham.

koolaid
10-10--2006, 02:20 PM
Yeah I am going with the Batman saving us all idea...It has about as much chance of working as Blair and Bush coming up with some sensible solution to the whole thing....

Is pretty scary though, wouldn't want to live in Japan round about now....

But I agree with Dok I am not sure there is much that can really be done...

matthew
10-10--2006, 02:56 PM
It's ironic that the biggest nuclear power, and the only country to have ever used them in a war is the one who makes the most fuss.

This was 60 years ago. The world and America have changed. Do the Americans have rockets pointing towards the USSR or China ?. Or is Russia and China part of endless amount of agreements between their old enemies and the majority of nations all over the world. Every time i look into this i find a differing agreement between differing counties. it is almost mind boggling. You must know the endless treaties pacts and such, that have been signed over the last 60 years ?. They [Americans] are not the ones making the biggest fuss imho. They are one of dozens of countries making the same point and 'fuss'. We can't forget that, and just make it a 'American' thing. Infact it is possibly China is making the most fuss, because they are the ones with the most to lose and the ones that are the stumbling block for any sanctions currently in draft form.


Seriously, that's about as sensible as listening to someone smoking 20 a day encouraging everyone else to quit.

Well N.Korea claim they are of no threat, and fully appreciate the global nuclear positions of countries around the world. They are far more sophisticated on these issues than we are. Some just say what you have and that is about it.. i suppose they could use the same rationale as you, to prevent a resolution to this situation. Imho the biggest cop out imaginable.



Nothing can be done, what's the point of threatening sanctions and making the world even more unstable?


I'm hopeful.. but agree with the sentiments of Stu.. I don't want to but....we shall see.

Rook
10-10--2006, 05:34 PM
The spread of Nukes is terrible but its a bit two faced to say they cant hacve them but we "Good Free World Countries" can. Lets face it at least one totalitarian power lead by a religious fanatic has them. Oh no sorry thats the Yanks.

matthew
10-10--2006, 09:05 PM
The spread of Nukes is terrible but its a bit two faced to say they cant have them but we "Good Free World Countries" can.

It is not two faced, the whole NPT is what the "nuclear-armed states" and the 155 signortaries agree on, and agree that they [the "nuclear-armed states"] have them and have signed the agreement aknowledging that they can have them, they along with the "nuclear-armed states" can't proliferate any further nuclear material, in return, they are given an undertaking that they will helped to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. N. korea have no obligations to follow the NPT. As they removed themselves from those obligations a few years ago. It is a break down in international diplomacy and commitments. Once the genie was out of the bottle over 60+ years ago, and the world was a different place. The only step forward was to bring everything back into the bottle [apart from peaceful nuclear energy]. N.Korea once upon a time agreed with this seemingly two faced arangement, but have decieded to be two faced themselves. Who is threatening them ?, why drag politics back a few decades ?.




Lets face it at least one totalitarian power lead by a religious fanatic has them. Oh no sorry thats the Yanks.

Oh not you as well :rolleyes: . When countries use this excuse to excuse there behaviour. Where does it end ?.

PlutoPete
11-10--2006, 12:02 AM
I get the impression that this situation was caused by us Westerners. When we all help the yankees fight wars, then they say "North Korea, Iran, YOU'RE NEXT!!" can you really blame them for trying to develop nuclear weapons? The only reason we invaded Iraq is because they DIDN'T have the weapons to stop us. I'd prefer if nobody has the weapons at all, the worst thing we ever created. But this nuke elitism (and lets face it, George W. is hardly a 'safe' person to have a large collection of these weapons?) is rediculous. As usual, we westerners are saying "We're worthy, civilised people, you foreign non-white people are barbarians and will sell them to terrorists". They just want to be safe from the U.S: Corrupt World Police.well said

Athena
11-10--2006, 05:16 PM
Why does having nuclear weapons give a country more power/threat when apprently they won't be used anyway?

Makes me edgy.

*runs to.....Mars*

Coyote
12-10--2006, 02:10 PM
Why does having nuclear weapons give a country more power/threat when apprently they won't be used anyway?

Makes me edgy.

*runs to.....Mars*

The implied threat is that they can be used (even if only as "mutually assured destruction - as a "deterent").

This is what I dont get - the reason england has nukes is as a deterent against other states nuking them (the "you nuke us, we nuke you" deterent).....but if it isnt a deterent against Iran and Korea (as its being implied as failing to be, because of all the drive to stop them getting nukes) then that undoes the alleged reason to have them.

Essentially its a penis extension :rolleyes:

matthew
12-10--2006, 02:25 PM
[quote=Stealste]I get the impression that this situation was caused by us Westerners.

What has the 'west' done to N.korea ?.

I don't think they have provoked N/korea. It seems N.korea have been playing a few games. They accepted what the majority of the world has accepted for decades [with the NPT]. They then decieded that they would go against what they initialy set out to do and agreed upon.



When we all help the yankees fight wars, then they say "North Korea, Iran, YOU'RE NEXT!!" can you really blame them for trying to develop nuclear weapons?

When have they said ''your next'' ?. The consensus of America Europe Russia China Japan and other southern hemisphere countries.. Is If you don't stop building Nuclear weapons you are destabalising the region, and disrupting the peace. Regardless if 5 countries have Nukes. The rest of the world accepts that they have. Even Japan accepts this and has moved past this. They have agreed to NOT produce their own.

Secretary-General said that “what is clear is that he [Kim Jong-il] has not paid attention to the will of the international community and all the appeals that have been made to him.” He urged the DPRK Government not to escalate the situation any further.




The only reason we invaded Iraq is because they DIDN'T have the weapons to stop us.


Lets forget about the last 15 years of twoing and throwing then shall we ?. The lies and subdefuge of the Saddam regime, and the way he could have prevented such actions with out this blood shed. Imho Kim Jong-il is just as stubborn and stupid to ignore the the situation he has created for himself. With as much arrogance as to say ''it's all Americas fault''. If Kim Jong-il has the lack of political sophistication, then i pity the fool. He is just useing excuse after excuse.



I'd prefer if nobody has the weapons at all, the worst thing we ever created. But this nuke elitism (and lets face it, George W. is hardly a 'safe' person to have a large collection of these weapons?) is rediculous.



So would i. I'd hope within my life time they are no more. Though i doubt that very much.
It is not nuke elitism, it imho is just the balance of power that the international community has acccepted. It is only these rogue states that prevent a quicker decline in the removal of Nukes in this world. Events like this knock everything back atleast 5 years, maybe more..



As usual, we westerners are saying "We're worthy, civilised people, you foreign non-white people are barbarians and will sell them to terrorists".

If Auatralia decieded or any country decieded to create a Nuke programme. International condemnation would be the same. None whites see that N.Korea COULD sell their Nukes on to terrorists or other regimes. It aint the colour of the skin. It is nothing to do with them supposedly being 'barbarians'. N.Korea is not. It has sophisticated politicians, who use prejudice and a warped perception of other nations, as a excuse to continue what they wish to do.

They have atleast 3 people here buying into there logic.



They just want to be safe from the U.S: Corrupt World Police.


It seems they want to be safe from 95% of the rest of the world.

Atomik
12-10--2006, 04:16 PM
This is what I dont get - the reason england has nukes is as a deterent against other states nuking them (the "you nuke us, we nuke you" deterent).....but if it isnt a deterent against Iran and Korea (as its being implied as failing to be, because of all the drive to stop them getting nukes) then that undoes the alleged reason to have them.That logic doesn't follow. The idea is that the possession of nukes deters other countries from using nukes, not developing them.

Coyote
13-10--2006, 10:11 AM
That logic doesn't follow. The idea is that the possession of nukes deters other countries from using nukes, not developing them.

Sure it follows. Supposedly the UK having nukes is a defence against anyone nuking them....as I said. So it should not be a problem that korea or iran have nukes as the uk's deterent will protect them....which is the rationale for having nukes allegedly.

Only if the deterent factor does not work is it vald to stop other countries having nukes.....but then that would deprive the uk of ITS reason to have nukes. :insane:

Atomik
13-10--2006, 10:52 AM
Sure it follows. Supposedly the UK having nukes is a defence against anyone nuking them....as I said. So it should not be a problem that korea or iran have nukes as the uk's deterent will protect them....which is the rationale for having nukes allegedly.

Only if the deterent factor does not work is it vald to stop other countries having nukes.....but then that would deprive the uk of ITS reason to have nukes. :insane:That's the most bizarre attempt at twisting logic to try and avoid admitting you're wrong that I've ever witnessed. ;)

Coyote
13-10--2006, 10:53 AM
That's the most bizarre attempt at twisting logic to try and avoid admitting you're wrong that I've ever witnessed. ;)
I really cant see what your problem is Dok. Could you spell it out specifically instead of vague notions of "twisting logic" without saying what you mean. :)

UK has nukes to stop others nuking them - thats the rationale / excuse for having nukes. Either having them works as a deterent (and they dont need to stop korea having nukes) or it doesnt work as a deterent (in which case the uk has no excuse for owning them).

Its actually very simple logic :insane:

Atomik
13-10--2006, 10:58 AM
It's really simple. The possession of nukes is meant to deter other countries from using them (deter, not prevent). It therefore doesn't follow that an objection to another country developing nukes somehow demonstrates that the detterence principle doesn't work.

Coyote
13-10--2006, 11:05 AM
It's really simple. The possession of nukes is meant to deter other countries from using them (deter, not prevent). It therefore doesn't follow that an objection to another country developing nukes somehow demonstrates that the detterence principle doesn't work.

:eek:

:insane:

That is so wordtwisty nonsensical as to beggar belief dok. Something that deters seeks to prevent.

Atomik
13-10--2006, 11:11 AM
Something that deters seeks to prevent.Exactly. Seeks to prevent. It's not a guarantee of prevention. It therefore follows that even if the possession of nukes offers the protection of detterence (which I don't necessarily believe!), countries would still seek to limit the proliferation of nukes since detterence is no guarantee that they won't be used.

Put it this way. If I had a gun, I'd expect it to deter other gun users from shooting me. I wouldn't expect it to guarantee that they wouldn't shoot me, so I'd still prefer it if nobody else had a gun.

Coyote
13-10--2006, 11:15 AM
Exactly. Seeks to prevent. It's not a guarantee of prevention. It therefore follows that even if the possession of nukes offers the protection of detterence (which I don't necessarily believe!), countries would still seek to limit the proliferation of nukes since detterence is no guarantee that they won't be used.

NOTHING is a "guarantee of prevention". It is absolutely impossible to be 100% certain of such matters.

I cant see what point you are trying to make here dok.

Atomik
13-10--2006, 11:17 AM
NOTHING is a "guarantee of prevention". It is absolutely impossible to be 100% certain of such matters.

I cant see what point you are trying to make here dok.You were arguing that the objections to nuclear proliferation prove that detterence doesn't work. I'm arguing that's not the case, since detterence isn't a guarantee. Even if detterence had proved effective in the past, it would still seem sensible (from a Western political and strategic perspective) to limit proliferation.

Coyote
13-10--2006, 11:19 AM
You were arguing that the objections to nuclear proliferation prove that detterence doesn't work. I'm arguing that's not the case, since detterence isn't a guarantee. Even if detterence had proved effective in the past, it would still seem sensible (from a Western political and strategic perspective) to limit proliferation.

Well they could start with their own as they obviously dont prevent then most dangerous folks from letting fly with the nukes......(which is my point :) )

Atomik
13-10--2006, 11:24 AM
Well they could start with their own as they obviously dont prevent then most dangerous folks from letting fly with the nukes......(which is my point :) )No argument here. :D

Coyote
13-10--2006, 11:26 AM
No argument here. :D

:whack:

:insane:

:harhar:

:D

Atomik
13-10--2006, 11:39 AM
:whack:

:insane:

:harhar:

:DAre they the four smilies of the apocalypse? :D

Stealste
13-10--2006, 04:10 PM
[quote]

What has the 'west' done to N.korea ?.

I don't think they have provoked N/korea. It seems N.korea have been playing a few games. They accepted what the majority of the world has accepted for decades [with the NPT]. They then decieded that they would go against what they initialy set out to do and agreed upon.




When have they said ''your next'' ?. The consensus of America Europe Russia China Japan and other southern hemisphere countries.. Is If you don't stop building Nuclear weapons you are destabalising the region, and disrupting the peace. Regardless if 5 countries have Nukes. The rest of the world accepts that they have. Even Japan accepts this and has moved past this. They have agreed to NOT produce their own.

Secretary-General said that “what is clear is that he [Kim Jong-il] has not paid attention to the will of the international community and all the appeals that have been made to him.” He urged the DPRK Government not to escalate the situation any further.






Lets forget about the last 15 years of twoing and throwing then shall we ?. The lies and subdefuge of the Saddam regime, and the way he could have prevented such actions with out this blood shed. Imho Kim Jong-il is just as stubborn and stupid to ignore the the situation he has created for himself. With as much arrogance as to say ''it's all Americas fault''. If Kim Jong-il has the lack of political sophistication, then i pity the fool. He is just useing excuse after excuse.




So would i. I'd hope within my life time they are no more. Though i doubt that very much.
It is not nuke elitism, it imho is just the balance of power that the international community has acccepted. It is only these rogue states that prevent a quicker decline in the removal of Nukes in this world. Events like this knock everything back atleast 5 years, maybe more..




If Auatralia decieded or any country decieded to create a Nuke programme. International condemnation would be the same. None whites see that N.Korea COULD sell their Nukes on to terrorists or other regimes. It aint the colour of the skin. It is nothing to do with them supposedly being 'barbarians'. N.Korea is not. It has sophisticated politicians, who use prejudice and a warped perception of other nations, as a excuse to continue what they wish to do.

They have atleast 3 people here buying into there logic.



It seems they want to be safe from 95% of the rest of the world.

The First two points you made can be covered by this- North Korea is on America's Rogue Nations list.
Lemme guess... Who else was on their rogue nations list? Oh yes... Afghanistan and Iraq. Right. Coincidence, totally, i agree :)
Iran and N.Korea are next on the 'Rogue Nations' list. Hmm.... is it also coincidence that they're both the only ones possibly looking to develop a Nuclear Deterrent?

Perhaps he didn't bow the will of the international community, but seeing as how the international community is usually defined by the U.N. Security council (who, coincidentally enough, are the 5 BIGGEST dealers of arms around the world, to dictatorships and terrorist groups around the planet :)) or just the plain old U.N, who, at present, couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and have done just swell to stop america fighting illegal wars and stop the international terror threat.

Comparing him to Saddam doesn't work. I've read (i'm not sure how reliable it was, but i can always find the source i read) than an independant American survey found SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people have died since the invasion of Iraq. Thats a better rate than Saddam could kill them off, so us getting involved will probably not in fact save lives, all it will do is save our Western Egos. And mean a lot of poor innocent Koreans will pay the price for the ambitions and evils of their leaders and anyone who believes they're worthy to be the world police, and fuck things up more.

And, no offense, i share the sentiment... BUT THERE WILL NEVER BE NUCLEAR DISARMING. NEVER. NOT EVER. DON'T EVEN DREAM OF IT. 5 Year back from infinity is still a long time. As long as the technology exists, they will never get rid of them. The Principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is something FAR too valuable to the U.N. security council, and especially valuable to the U.S. - they can do whatever the fuck they like, because nobody has the weapons to stop them. The only way MAD can TRULY work is if EVERYBODY has them, so why should we deny them to nations who cannot defend themselves against an aggressor as large as the U.S.

matthew
13-10--2006, 05:21 PM
The First two points you made can be covered by this- North Korea is on America's Rogue Nations list.
Lemme guess... Who else was on their rogue nations list? Oh yes... Afghanistan and Iraq. Right. Coincidence, totally, i agree :)
Iran and N.Korea are next on the 'Rogue Nations' list. Hmm.... is it also coincidence that they're both the only ones possibly looking to develop a Nuclear Deterrent?


Like i said though.. he once upon a time went along with the NPT. What changed ?. His inclusion in the ''Axsis of evil'' ?.. even though he was contemplating nuclear weapons way before that.


Perhaps he didn't bow the will of the international community, but seeing as how the international community is usually defined by the U.N. Security council (who, coincidentally enough, are the 5 BIGGEST dealers of arms around the world, to dictatorships and terrorist groups around the planet :)) or just the plain old U.N, who, at present, couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Mmmmm i think the UN is the best option.. With all its faults.
They have averted many a humaniterian disaster.. writing them off is a bit unfair. How else is a international consensus going to come about ?. The U.N is too complex to write them off so easily.




and have done just swell to stop america fighting illegal wars and stop the international terror threat

''Illegal'' is open too interpretation... not something i think we should get into right now.


Comparing him to Saddam doesn't work. I've read (i'm not sure how reliable it was, but i can always find the source i read) than an independant American survey found SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people have died since the invasion of Iraq.

Thats a better rate than Saddam could kill them off,

I'm comapring the stubborness and the reluctance to be open and honest.. nothing more..

That figure is from the lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/.. If you go to their website and register you can see the report.

WE did not kill the above figure [655,000]. Why not highlight who actually has killed the majority of people in Iraq ?.

I don't do 'body counts' though. It is a futile way to view events. Atleast it would be advisable if all those involved get the same responsibilty.. even if % wise secterian violence and insurgent activity has caused the majority of deaths.

I heard [on Newsnight] the person who helped put theses figures together. Say ''regardless of the No.s Bush should atleast have the humilty to say he regrets the death in Iraq'' [or something along those lines.]

He must have missed the press conference earlier in the day..

"I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and that troubles me, and it grieves me," Bush said. "And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003300533_iraqdeaths12.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003300533_iraqdeaths12.html)


So us getting involved will probably not in fact save lives, all it will do is save our Western Egos. And mean a lot of poor innocent Koreans will pay the price for the ambitions and evils of their leaders and anyone who believes they're worthy to be the world police, and fuck things up more.

It is international egos if anything.. not just 'western'. I agree the innocent N.Koreans will feel the brunt of this. It is the fault of the N.Korean goverment who use aid to fund a nuclear programme over buying food. They should atleast get there priorities in order, before starting a nuclear programme.



And, no offense, i share the sentiment... BUT THERE WILL NEVER BE NUCLEAR DISARMING. NEVER. NOT EVER. DON'T EVEN DREAM OF IT. 5 Year back from infinity is still a long time. As long as the technology exists, they will never get rid of them. The Principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is something FAR too valuable to the U.N. security council, and especially valuable to the U.S. - they can do whatever the fuck they like, because nobody has the weapons to stop them. The only way MAD can TRULY work is if EVERYBODY has them, so why should we deny them to nations who cannot defend themselves against an aggressor as large as the U.S.


THERE IS BUT IT IS VERY VERY SLOW.. N.kOREA IS ONLY ONE STUMBLING BLOCK. NEVER EVER EVER ?... A Little pessimistic. Not in our lifetimes, i'd go with that.

That debate might have worked in 1950s or something but we are in 2006. If you read what i have said previously i can see the hypocrisy of only certain countries having Nukes.. and the reason why i think that should not remove nations responsibilities if they seek a peace in this world and a reduction in weapons grade nuclear material.

Stealste
14-10--2006, 10:27 AM
Fair enough mate, no point arguing over it really :) Peace!

Although i mainly just said about Nuclear Disarmament, because, i have *some* experience in the matter. 4 of my family have served on Nuclear Submarines, my parents met in Fas Lane when they were both stationed there. My Dad's current role within the navy is co-ordinating missile attacks (which would include nuclear missiles, should there be a threat) between land and submarines. Through what he's told me, there'll never be disarmament, and i can understand that. As long as the technology to create Nukes exists, then no-one will ever give up theirs. The U.N. security council certainly wouldn't give up theirs- Basically because there's ALWAYS going to be another 'Rogue nation' who'll try and create them, either under threat from a superpower or otherwise. I just don't see it happening personally :p Thats basivcally why Korea can never use them- Because they'd be nuked if they used theirs. In fact, the ONLY protection we can ever have against nukes nowadays, is in fact more nukes, unfortunately. I too would like to see nuclear disarmament, i would love the day mankind realises they're the worst thing we ever created, but i'm also a realist, and i know that it just can't be done.

Athena
14-10--2006, 01:58 PM
We're all gonna diiiie!!!! :panic:

matthew
14-10--2006, 02:08 PM
Fair enough mate, no point arguing over it really Oh i never argue, i just put my thoughts down in a robust manner Shut it Atomic

:) Peace! Peace to you as well... :)



Although i mainly just said about Nuclear Disarmament, because, i have *some* experience in the matter. 4 of my family have served on Nuclear Submarines, my parents met in Fas Lane when they were both stationed there. My Dad's current role within the navy is co-ordinating missile attacks (which would include nuclear missiles, should there be a threat) between land and submarines. Through what he's told me, there'll never be disarmament, and i can understand that. As long as the technology to create Nukes exists, then no-one will ever give up theirs. The U.N. security council certainly wouldn't give up theirs- Basically because there's ALWAYS going to be another 'Rogue nation' who'll try and create them, either under threat from a superpower or otherwise. I just don't see it happening personally :p Thats basically why Korea can never use them- Because they'd be nuked if they used theirs. In fact, the ONLY protection we can ever have against nukes nowadays, is in fact more nukes, unfortunately. I too would like to see nuclear disarmament, i would love the day mankind realises they're the worst thing we ever created, but i'm also a realist, and i know that it just can't be done.


I'd say the re-distribution of nukes will be with us for a very long time. NEW nukes should never be on anybodys agenda. Your dad could be right, but i'd hope he also has a very pessimitic view of the situation.

John
14-10--2006, 05:44 PM
We're all gonna diiiie!!!! :panic:
I'm with Naeni on this one...

matthew
14-10--2006, 05:49 PM
I'm with Naeni on this one...

Can i have your computer ... ?.

Stealste
15-10--2006, 01:06 PM
Aye, well like i said it'll all be down to opinion, although i hope yours proves to be true. I certainly agree that we don't need more weapons that could kill millions in this world... Unfortunately, though, not a lot of governments think like that. I don't neccessarily agree with what N.Korea's done, but i can understand why they did it.

John
15-10--2006, 01:07 PM
Can i have your computer ... ?.
No. :harhar:

matthew
15-10--2006, 07:14 PM
Aye, well like i said it'll all be down to opinion, although i hope yours proves to be true. I certainly agree that we don't need more weapons that could kill millions in this world...

Atleast we can agree on this.


Unfortunately, though, not a lot of governments think like that.

Well if it was not nukes, it is some other weapon of mass destruction. I'd like to think our goverment has a soul... but the spectrum of acceptable behaviour is wide and diverse..I'd say what i find 'acceptable' differs from you.
To be honest with you:

All i've heard from Blair recently is ''we are the responsible ones''. Shit like that makes even me sceptical. It might be because he is tired of hearing the same 'ol questions.. especially with the indian prime minister here at the moment [or has he gone home now ?.] .. I dunno.


I don't neccessarily agree with what N.Korea's done, but i can understand why they did it.

I can't.


No. :harhar:

Here is me thinking we were friends... i dunno. :rolleyes: ;) :D

koolaid
19-10--2006, 02:12 AM
We're all gonna diiiie!!!! :panic:

At last somebody talking sense! :)

trotterpuss
19-10--2006, 11:41 AM
I know this is a serious issue, but has anyone noticed just hao much kim whatisface president of N Korea looks exactly like his puppet on team america?

matthew
19-10--2006, 11:56 AM
I know this is a serious issue, but has anyone noticed just hao much kim whatisface president of N Korea looks exactly like his puppet on team america?

It is supposed to be him.

trotterpuss
19-10--2006, 12:38 PM
I know that, but for all the puppets ect moddeled on real people, this is surely the most life like one that i've seen!

matthew
19-10--2006, 12:45 PM
I know that, but for all the puppets ect moddeled on real people, this is surely the most life like one that i've seen!

Doh.. i missed '' looks exactly like his puppet'' *GETS THE SLEEP OUT OF HIS EYES*

http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/21/us.n.korea/link.kim.jong.il.jpghttp://entimg.msn.com/i/gal/TeamAmerica/TA-DF-06335_273x400.jpg

IT AINT BAD.

http://mira.film.nu/upload/team_america_300_200.jpg

s (http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=TEAM+AMERICA&ndsp=18&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&start=54&sa=N)

That fat bastard looks like the original as welll

trotterpuss
19-10--2006, 10:18 PM
You're right as well! How funny is that. help i'm in danger of going off topic?

matthew
24-10--2006, 01:46 PM
Chinese pressure forces North Korea to apologise and promise no more tests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,1927994,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

http://bookstore21.net/bbc/magazine/index.htm

I must have been asleep....:o